If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

If a player isn't out of bounds the ball can move, not touch the ground and be complete.
However, if the ball is moving after the player is out of bounds, even if it never touches the ground, it's incomplete.

Wrong!

Originally Posted by nyjunc

It doesn't have to touch the ground:

where does it mention anything about touching the ground? it says "COMPLETE AND CONTINUOUS CONTROL", the ball bobbling does not indicate complete and continuous control, does it?

My quote came from the item directly above in the same section dude. So the ref ruled he had complete and continuous control and the ball did not touch the ground.

Sorry man = catch all day long.

COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS
Article 3 Completed or Intercepted Pass.
A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward
pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:

(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to
perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it,
advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).

Note 1: It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long
enough to do so.

Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of
possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.
If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body other than his hands
to the ground, or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, it is not a catch.

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground.If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or
without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting
the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches
the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching
the ground, the pass is complete.

Item 2: Sideline Catches. If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an
opponent) in the process of making a catch at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous
control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, or the pass is incomplete.

Item 3: End Zone Catches.If a player controls the ball while in the end zone, both feet, or any part of his body
other than his hands, must be completely on the ground before losing control, or the pass is incomplete.

Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession. [quote]

I don't know how this discussion is even continuing on but the information above should put an end to any talk about him not having total control (which never happened).

Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.

I don't know how this discussion is even continuing on but the information above should put an end to any talk about him not having total control (which never happened).

No, complete and continuous control tells YOU it can't move. YOU are interpreting it that way. No where in the rule book does it say the ball can't move. You are assuming that information based on a purposely vague description meant to allow the referee leeway on different scenarios. You are assuming your interpretation of the rule if correct and everyone else's, including the referees, the NFL, and the entire sports journalism world's, is wrong. Are you really so arrogant as to think that your subjective interpretation of the rule is correct and everyone else's is not...?

EDIT: Also, that ball never ever touches the ground. How can you call a pass that never touches the ground incomplete...?

I am not interpreting it that way, it's pretty clear plus I have seen it explained during games and called that way during games.

In regards to your last sentence, I don't disagree w/ you but that's the rule.

Originally Posted by PhinzN703

I'll be honest. I've never "met" someone like you on a message board before. I don't know why you spin **** the way you do but I guess it's just the way you are. The clip you provide shows no ball movement whatsoever yet you say it does. It's baffling

it's not spin, I post what i think is correct no matter what it is. It sure as heck looks like the ball moves when his elbow hits the ground. I'm not sure how you can miss that.

Originally Posted by NY8123

Wrong!

My quote came from the item directly above in the same section dude. So the ref ruled he had complete and continuous control and the ball did not touch the ground.

Sorry man = catch all day long.

You highlighted so much stuff and you are still wrong, all that matters is the sideline rule where he must "maintain complete and continuous possession". The movement part was for a catch in the field of play. This isn't that difficult.

Originally Posted by Locke

I'm glad you know what I meant. These people treating everyone else like they are football retarded gets old...

I'm not treating anyone like they are idiots, if you think that I apologize but I'm being treated as you describe b/c I know the rule and most people don't. It doesn't make me better than anyone but I have seen this play tons of times in games so I know it, before I saw it applied in a game I didn't know it either.

Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.

I don't know how this discussion is even continuing on but the information above should put an end to any talk about him not having total control (which never happened).

[QUOTE=Locke;1064203613][QUOTE=PhinzN703;1064203611]

Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.

Boom. Roasted.

You guys are killing me, that is not the SIDELINE rule! I posted the exact definition from NFL.com and the OFFICIAL rule book.

Sideline Catches. If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an
opponent) in the process of making a catch at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous
control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, or the pass is incomplete.

I'm not treating anyone like they are idiots, if you think that I apologize but I'm being treated as you describe b/c I know the rule and most people don't. It doesn't make me better than anyone but I have seen this play tons of times in games so I know it, before I saw it applied in a game I didn't know it either.

It wasn't in reference to you. Whatever other people call you, the one thing they can't is condescending. I don't think I've ever seen you talking down to anyone...

You highlighted so much stuff and you are still wrong, all that matters is the sideline rule where he must "maintain complete and continuous possession". The movement part was for a catch in the field of play. This isn't that difficult.

If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.